IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60250
Conference Calendar
__________________
CHRISTOPHER REGULAR,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
EDWARD HARGETT, SUPERINTENDENT,
MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY;
EDDIE LUCAS; COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MIKE MOORE,
Respondents-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:94-CV-262-D-0
- - - - - - - - - -
August 23, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Christopher Regular, a Mississippi state inmate convicted of
manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment, appeals
the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his petition for
habeas corpus. Regular's direct criminal appeal is still pending
before the Mississippi Supreme Court. His federal habeas
petition challenges, not his conviction, but the Mississippi
state courts' determination regarding his bail on appeal. He
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-60250
-2-
argues that the state courts acted arbitrarily and unreasonably
in setting bail pending appeal in the amount of $75,000.
There is no absolute federal constitutional right to bail
pending appeal; however, once a state makes provisions for bail,
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that it not be
denied arbitrarily or unreasonably. Young v. Hubbard, 673 F.2d
132, 134 (5th Cir. 1982). In light of the seriousness of
Regular's offense and the length of his sentence, bail of $75,000
was not arbitrary or unreasonable, and thus, was not
unconstitutional. See id.
Regular argues for the first time on appeal that, because he
was rendered a pauper by being required to post a $100,000 bond
prior to trial, a $75,000 appeal bond is tantamount to no bond at
all. "[I]ssues raised for the first time on appeal are not
reviewable by this court unless they involve purely legal
questions and failure to consider them would result in manifest
injustice." Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.
1991). We decline to consider this argument because even a
complete denial of bond would not have been constitutionally
impermissible in this case. See, e.g., Young, 673 F.2d 134.
Regular's argument that the district court was required to
hold an evidentiary hearing before dismissing his petition is
equally unavailing. An evidentiary hearing is required only if
the petitioner did not receive a full and fair state-court
hearing and there are disputed issues of fact. Townsend v. Sain,
372 U.S. 293, 312 (1963). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.